The Logic challenge - light speed is instantaneous

If the distance is 300000 kms to the mirror and 300000kms back again the mirror the delay in change of the mirror would be 1 second and the change in your eye would be 1 second the total elapsed time = 2 seconds over 600000lms.

Because the amount of energy is lessened by distance ( nothing new here) the reflector surface takes the appropriate amount of time more or longer to change to a state that reflects the light.

Click to expand...

I don't find this acceptable. What you claim now then means that the star light we see (since it isn't reflected but transmitted. Has arrived here and our eye must delay interpretation for 13.5 Billion years.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

I don't find this acceptable. What you claim now then means that the star light we see (since it isn't reflected but transmitted. Has arrived here and our eye must delay interpretation for 13.5 Billion years.

I would just dream of living that long.

Click to expand...

Nope you were right the first time

This idea also suggests that we are witnessing cosmological events in real time even from 13.5 Billion light years distance with only a 0.5 second delay at our receptors.

Click to expand...

the light energy is recieved instantaneously but the strength of that energy determines the rate of receptor change. Distance only effects the strength and not the travel time which is zero.
edit: the rate of change is constant just the reflection is weaker

summary of hypothesis
1) Relativity has a syntax error.
2) light is instantaneous because the universe takes time to change and reflect it and this is what is being measured not the velocity of light.
3) If light travelled at 'c' then the reflection must be instantaneous and for it to be instantaneous then time ceases to exist, thus no universe.
4) Particles are vibrating at the rate of 'c'. Thus the future changes to the past at this rate ( as shown by the light cones)
5) The distance of their vibration traveled in a second is approx. 300,000 kms.
6) e = mc^2 has now got another meaning???

You have any evidence that suggests this hypothesis is true and not the standard travel time concept?

Click to expand...

Brandon, I haven't had time yet to even think about where to look for evidence. Maybe you coul dgive me an idea what would prove or disprove this hypothesis. What actual physical observation would prove the logic?

QQ, you seem confused.
It doesn't make sense to say that a fixed point "changes at c". C is a speed - it requires both a distance and a time to be meaningful.

What I think you are getting at is this:
A change at any point in space will propogate to other points in space at c.
So, when a change is made at point A (light emitted), that change will not be "real"* at point B (150000km away) until 0.5 seconds later. If that change induces another change at point B (a reflection), then the change at B won't be "real" at A until 0.5 seconds later again.

* "Real" is not really the right word here. "Detectable", "Meaningful", "of consequence" are alternatives, but don't go far enough. "Real" might go a bit too far, but is closer to the concept I have in mind.

Any event that occurs in the area within A's cones has a timelike separation from A. This means that if event B occurs within event A's light cones, there is a reference frame in which A and B both occur at the same place, but at different times. If B occurs in A's past lightcone, then B must occur before A, and vice versa.

Even trickier:
Any event that occurs in the area outside A's cones has a spacelike separation from event A. This means that if event B occurs outside A's light cones, there is a reference frame in which A and B occur simultaneously, but at different places.

Even trickier again:
For any two events with spacelike separation, you can find a reference frame that makes those two events occur as close to each other as you like in space, but never in exactly the same place. You can also choose a reference frame to make the time between the two events any duration you want.

Events exactly on the light cones of event A have lightlike separation. You can pick a reference frame to make the time and distance between the two events as large or small as you like, but you can't make it zero, you can't change the sign, and the distance/time ratio will always be c

Any event that occurs in the area within A's cones has a timelike separation from A. This means that if event B occurs within event A's light cones, there is a reference frame in which A and B both occur at the same place, but at different times. If B occurs in A's past lightcone, then B must occur before A, and vice versa.

Click to expand...

Why I find this interpretation confusing?

The light cones only are relevant to a light ray. and not relevant to any other events other than that of a light ray. Now if a light ray is invariant then all ray events are identicle as stated thus relativities main postulate comes to be. Light is invariant to all observers irespective of the velocity of the observers.

Pete, what you are suggesting is that light is not invariant, that lights behaviour in time can some how be different depending on the event. This clearly contradicts the very purpose of the light cones which is to describe that light is invariant, or should I say behaves the same in all circumstances, with respect to time.

Were did you get this reference from?

Events exactly on the light cones of event A have lightlike separation. You can pick a reference frame to make the time and distance between the two events as large or small as you like, but you can't make it zero, you can't change the sign, and the distance/time ratio will always be c

Click to expand...

If one takes the light cones out of context I can see how this could be thought to be the case. But I can only repeat that the light cones refer in particular only to a ray of light. The photonic event so to speak.

And clearly demostrates that light is invariant regarless of location, velocity of source or observer.

So how we get a contextual shift that states

Events exactly on the light cones of event A have lightlike separation. You can pick a reference frame to make the time and distance between the two events as large or small as you like, but you can't make it zero, you can't change the sign, and the distance/time ratio will always be c

Click to expand...

is rather strange......

Another interesting syntax is that Einstien states quite clearly that the photons "velocity" is the center of time. and is invariant etc.....stating that absolute time is no longer that time is variant. yet at the same moment declaring that the photonic event is the centre of time.

So on one hand declare absolute time obsolete and yet on the other recreate it with the light cones........all light rays behaviours are identicle as light is invariant.
This is why we are confused......declaring something obsolete only to create it again in default. A syntax or paradox so to speak.

so maybe Einstein may have invalidated concepts of absolute time but in the very same inspiration created absolute time for the photon. And as I have stated in my last post that centre of time still exists for matter as well. so he hasn't removed absolute time , just shifted it to the photon and in doing so proved absolute time for everything else as well....

If you follow my reasoning you can see the nature of this syntax and how pervasive it is....